United States v. Bailey

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Bailey

142 F. App'x 712

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedAugust 4, 2005

Docket04-4132

StatusUnpublished

This text of 142 F. App'x 712 (United States v. Bailey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Bailey, 142 F. App'x 712 (4th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Tanisha M. Bailey appeals her conviction and twenty-one month sentence following her guilty plea to aiding and assisting in the preparation of a false tax return, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206 (2000). In her appeal, filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel for Bailey claims to have found no non-frivolous claims for appeal, but argues that the magistrate judge erred in accepting Bailey’s guilty plea. Bailey was notified of her opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. Finding no error, we affirm.

Bailey did not seek to withdraw her guilty plea in the district court. Accordingly, we review this claim for plain error. See United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir.2002) (holding that “plain error analysis is the proper standard for review of forfeited error in the Rule 11 context”). A plea is presumed to be final and binding if the Rule 11 hearing is adequate. United States v. Puckett, 61 F.3d 1092, 1099 (4th Cir.1995). Our review of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation details a thorough Rule 11 colloquy that assured Bailey’s plea was made both knowingly and voluntarily. See Unit *713 ed States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 117, 120 (4th Cir.1991). Accordingly, we find Bailey’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary and properly accepted by the magistrate judge.

Finding no meritorious issues upon our review of the record, we affirm Bailey’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of her right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Tanisha M. Bailey appeals her conviction and twenty-one month sentence following her guilty plea to aiding and assisting in the preparation of a false tax return, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206 (2000). In her appeal, filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel for Bailey claims to have found no non-frivolous claims for appeal, but argues that the magistrate judge erred in accepting Bailey’s guilty plea. Bailey was notified of her opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. Finding no error, we affirm.

Bailey did not seek to withdraw her guilty plea in the district court. Accordingly, we review this claim for plain error. See United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir.2002) (holding that “plain error analysis is the proper standard for review of forfeited error in the Rule 11 context”). A plea is presumed to be final and binding if the Rule 11 hearing is adequate. United States v. Puckett, 61 F.3d 1092, 1099 (4th Cir.1995). Our review of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation details a thorough Rule 11 colloquy that assured Bailey’s plea was made both knowingly and voluntarily. See Unit *713 ed States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 117, 120 (4th Cir.1991). Accordingly, we find Bailey’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary and properly accepted by the magistrate judge.

Finding no meritorious issues upon our review of the record, we affirm Bailey’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of her right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 F. App'x 712, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-bailey-ca4-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack